Climategate DEVELOPING HARD!

It's fact.

There are many other facts, like go to Tuvalu (go on, get on a plane and GO see it, GO, see it with your own eyes) and see the reality of rising sea levels.

And yes, I have bothered to go see these things for myself.

University confirms that "Climategate" information has been carefully selected by sceptics to try and discredit the science behind global warming.

[link to www.google.com]

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.



any chance on answering those questions witness you are a scientist after all!

The strong consensus......
Backed by what scientific evidence?
Show me the evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------
If the scientific consensus is so strong, how can a few emails damage it? If the evidence for man made global warming really is there, why so much concern about the leaked emails? Surely independent examination of the evidence would produce the same results. You know, if they didn't delete the evidence already and replace it with "value added data".

University confirms that "Climategate" information has been carefully selected by sceptics to try and discredit the science behind global warming.

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

"Most mainstream scientists agree that the recent warming period was caused by an increase in carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution.

However Prof Plimer said the world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and furthermore carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods.

"If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added. " -- Professor Ian Plimer


"Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said it is widely accepted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has doubled in the last 200 years and as a result the globe is warming.

She said there are "natural variations" in temperature caused by the weather as well as natural phenomenon like El Nino and human effects like pollution, but overall the climate has been getting hotter and has reached its warmest period in recent years.

"The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up," she said. "

Neither one of these is true, which is why I can say confidently that “ClimateGate” is overblown–and which is why I’ve never been impressed by systematic attacks on the “hockey stick.” Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it’s still human caused.






Monkton has completeley destroyed global warming arguments in this post - he shows how the data has been deliberately 'tortured' to show a warming trend when the reality is actually a cooling one!

People need to go to prison for this, this is deliberate falsification.

[link to rightsoup.com]


Actually you cannot "destroy" fact. The fact is that you can get a ticket, go to Canada or Russia and see the permafrost melting for yourself.

No "debate" or "argument" can change that fact.

It's fact.

There are many other facts, like go to Tuvalu (go on, get on a plane and GO see it, GO, see it with your own eyes) and see the reality of rising sea levels.

[link to www.earth-policy.org]

Oh, there are endless places that you can see the reality of global warming.

So "debate" can deny that. Just idiots too stupid to care, too lazy to check the facts, too mentally dead to think for themselves.

And yes, I have bothered to go see these things for myself.

Neither one of these is true, which is why I can say confidently that “ClimateGate” is overblown–and which is why I’ve never been impressed by systematic attacks on the “hockey stick.” Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it’s still human caused.






Monkton has completeley destroyed global warming arguments in this post - he shows how the data has been deliberately 'tortured' to show a warming trend when the reality is actually a cooling one!

People need to go to prison for this, this is deliberate falsification.

[link to rightsoup.com]


Actually you cannot "destroy" fact. The fact is that you can get a ticket, go to Canada or Russia and see the permafrost melting for yourself.

No "debate" or "argument" can change that fact.

It's fact.

There are many other facts, like go to Tuvalu (go on, get on a plane and GO see it, GO, see it with your own eyes) and see the reality of rising sea levels.

[link to www.earth-policy.org]

Oh, there are endless places that you can see the reality of global warming.

So "debate" can deny that. Just idiots too stupid to care, too lazy to check the facts, too mentally dead to think for themselves.

And yes, I have bothered to go see these things for myself.

What do you call reps and senators combined? I have 2 reps, 2 senators.

You have 4 congressmaen? I think that's illegal.

Lets no be tearing each other to pieces hey?
Looks like the useless eaters get to eat their full life spans, no micrichips, no more smart dust, no skynet.

Cant you all see the precipice of victory for common sense and Real freedom we are on?



Settle folks.

Six Things We Know For Sure in the Wake of ‘Climate Gate’

1. Climate change is a very real and present danger

2. Scientists are Human Beings

3. That there are major dirty tricks campaigns at work.

4. That there is no vast conspiracy to uncover

5. Even if there was, conspiracy theorists would be the last people to uncover it

6. That Climate Change is Not the Only Reason to Break Our Love Affair With Oil

"The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up," she said. "


The "basic physics" is that an increase in temperature increases co2. So if both of those were true, it would runaway quite rapidly, or would have happened many times in the past.

front page of the british Daily Express Newpaper today (02/12/2009)

'THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD'

[link to www.express.co.uk]

[link to www.express.co.uk]

Who cares if Global warming isn't as bad as they say it is? Even if global warming is BS, humanity still has a colossal drain on resources and creates massive amounts of pollution. Maybe the carbon dioxide isn't warming the planet, but it IS turning the oceans acidic and destroying food chains. All the fish are becoming bi-gender and toxic. All the artificial estrogens from plastic and birth control in the water are making HUMAN men feminine. We still need legislation to counter that kind of pollution.
Don't believe humans are destroying the planet? There is a patch of garbage in the pacific ocean that is TWICE THE SIZE OF TEXAS!

The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid.

Lots of oil-company shills on GLP recently.

The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid.


The ocean has always been basic, it is just becoming more acidic. Sorry for being unclear. Also that rate is drastically speeding up of course, you can't say that 1751 had pollution like we do now. For such a large system like the oceans to change even slightly can be catastrophic to biomes like reefs that need calcium carbonate, which is used up to try to keep the water basic. Many small creatures in the plankton and shelled creatures cannot make shells at all or they are much weaker, strongly affecting ecosystems. This is already happening and it can only get worse.

"Five of the ice ages saw a far higher atmospheric carbon-dioxide content than at present. So carbon dioxide could not have caused past climate changes. Indeed, early Earth had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now - yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, tipping points or acid oceans.

In past ages it has been naturally absorbed into everything from limestone reefs to soil, rocks and living things. For example, limestone is a very common rock and contains 44 per cent carbon dioxide.

Dissolving carbon dioxide in ocean water has not created ocean acidity. The constant chemical reactions between ocean water and sediments and rocks on the sea floor have kept the oceans alkaline. When we run out of rocks on the sea floor, then the oceans might become acid. Don't wait up!"

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

University confirms that "Climategate" information has been carefully selected by sceptics to try and discredit the science behind global warming.

[link to www.google.com]

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.

Most popular lobbying firms for energy policy

[link to www.boston.com]

According to 2003 House and Senate records, the Globe found that 847 individual companies filed 1,214 unique lobbying disclosure reports using the energy code.

Registrant lobbying firm
(ranked by no. of clients) No. of clients Total paid by clients in 2003
1. Morgan Meguire, LLC 19 $1,510,000 (No. 2 ranked)
2. Van Ness Feldman 17 $1,010,000
3. Johnston & Associates, LLC 14 $1,060,000
4. Liebman & Associates, Inc 14 $270,000
5. Patton Boggs LLP 12 $1,060,000
6. The Dutko Group Companies, Inc 11 $1,005,000
7. ML Strategies, LLC 10 $615,000
8. Troutman Sanders LLP 9 $950,000
9. Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. 9 $840,000
10. Public Strategies, Inc (or Public Strategies Washington, Inc.) 9 $750,000
11. Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, PC 9 $410,000
12. Dykema Gossett, PLLC 9 $260,000
13. The Stella Group, Ltd. 9 $182,000
14. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 8 $2,810,000 (No. 1 ranked)
15. Daryl Owen Associates, Inc. 8 $1,330,000 (No. 3 ranked)
16. Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon 8 $1,220,000
17. Kanner & Associates 8 $738,000
18. Bracewell & Patterson, LLP 8 $615,000
19. National Environmental Strategies 8 $580,000
20. Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates 8 570,000
21. Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, LLP 8 $480,000
22. Alpine Group, Inc. 7 $1,120,000
23. Federalist Group, LLC 7 $895,000
24. American Continental Group, Inc. 7 $720,000
25. Alexander Strategy Group 7 $646,000
26. Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C. 7 $480,000
27. Smith, Hinaman & Associates 7 $340,000
28. Williams & Jensen, PC 6 $1,220,000
29. Cassidy & Associates, Inc. 6 $910,000
30. Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC 6 $760,000
31. Willard Group 6 $580,000
32. Jorden Burt LLP 6 $470,000
33. Colling & Assoc., Inc. t/a Colling Swift & Hynes 6 $441,225
34. Hogan & Hartson, LLP 6 $190,000
35. Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, LLP 5 $480,000
36. Balch & Bingham LLP 5 $880,000
37. Ball Janik LLP 5 $460,000
38. Ferguson Group 5 $420,000
39. O'Connor & Hannan, LLP 5 $420,000
40. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 5 $340,000
41. Will & Carlson, Inc. 5 $240,000
42. Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot 5 $200,000
43. The Lundquist Group, LLC 5 $200,000
44. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 5 $180,000